Maryland Court of Appeals

Case Status


Docket Number

No. 102


Case Updates


July 09, 2013

The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and found no applicable duty to warn.

U.S. Chamber argues plaintiffs' experts should be required to do rigorous scientific inquiry before presenting evidence in court

February 27, 2013

The U.S. Chamber urged the Maryland Court of Appeals to reject the use of the “any exposure” theory of liability for asbestos exposure, and to require plaintiffs' experts to provide causation evidence that survives a “sufficiency of evidence” review. The Chamber argued in its amicus brief that plaintiffs' experts have been lax in doing the rigorous scientific review required under the law. The Chamber argued that is critical to the integrity of the judicial system that Maryland courts require plaintiffs to rely on actual science, as presented by a competent expert, rather than “shortcuts” like assuming causation.

Case Documents